The engineers around here (Tennessee) don't use LRFD either (unless
forced to do so). My company does work all over the world and I've used
it twice. I've been to numerous AISC sponsored seminars where the
presenter laughed and made jokes (along with the audience) about LRFD.
I've been to other AISC sponsored seminars where the presenter was very
serious about LRFD and kept making comments about never updating the 9th
Edition Steel Manual. These "serious" guys appear to be the young ones
and I wonder if they've ever been responsible for designing a building.
Fountain, keep up the good (ASD) work!
Michael Ritter, PE
Senior Structural Engineer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fountain Conner [SMTP:fconner(--nospam--at)pcola.gulf.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 2:09 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
> Here in the remote reaches of the Florida panhandle, I don't do
> AISC likes LRFD; I don't. No one has yet convinced me of an
> I will use LRFD when either: 1. The codes demand it; 2. The client
> demands it; or 3. I recognize some advantage in time saving (my time)
> substantial savings of material (the owner's money).
> I understand, but have a problem with this statement, "The future is
> undoubtedly LRFD". Somebody please tell me why. Better yet, show me.
> Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
> Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561
> > From: Bohm, Gabriel <GBohm(--nospam--at)TechnipUSA.com>
> > To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> > Subject: ASD vs. LRFD
> > Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 11:45 AM
> > The future is undoubtedly LRFD. AISC hardly even mentions ASD, but
> > it seems that, in terms of LRFD implementation, the structural
> > community is quite a few steps behind. Is this assertion correct? I
> > would be of interest to all of us to find out how widespread the use
> > really is.
> > Gabe Bohm
> > San Dimas, Ca.